This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

contract law

"Spike offers tom his collection of golf clubs for £100. Tom asks time
to think about the offer and spike says he will keep it open for 10
days. Two days later tom sends a note to spike asking weather he would
consider taking £80 for gold clubs.
Spike takes the request as an indicator that tom does not want the
clubs at that price offered and as spike knows the jerry would be
willing to pay £110 for them promotly sells clubs to jerry.

A week later tom realising that the 10 days are almost expired and
having heard nothing from spike decides to send a letter to spike
accepting the offer. The letter crosses in the post with a note from
spike telling the clubs had been sold elsewhere. Tom had Agreed t sell
the clubs to mogg for £105.

ADVISE TOM?

does anyone know the answer to this qustion... i am confused by it... thanks

Reply 1

magiccarpet

2

im doing LLB Law

tom has no legal rights whatsoever. his asking to lower the price is irrelavent. there was no unequivocal acceptance on the part of Spike of the offer. so no contract existed between spike and tom, and therefore spike is free to sell the clubs to anyone. if he sold them to jerry, they are sold already so are no longer for sale.
the contract between mogg and tom cannot be fulfilled. unless mogg had paid a deposit on the clubs, mogg has given no considereation and the law will not support a bare promise so tom has no legal liablity to mogg

Reply 2

gabi

OP

magiccarpet

im doing LLB Law

tom has no legal rights whatsoever. his asking to lower the price is irrelavent. there was no unequivocal acceptance on the part of Spike of the offer. so no contract existed between spike and tom, and therefore spike is free to sell the clubs to anyone. if he sold them to jerry, they are sold already so are no longer for sale.
the contract between mogg and tom cannot be fulfilled. unless mogg had paid a deposit on the clubs, mogg has given no considereation and the law will not support a bare promise so tom has no legal liablity to mogg

thanks for your answer its really helpfull...

but could you maybe give me some more details.... e.g. similar cases and why contract betwen tom and mog cannot be fulfilled...

thank you very very very very muhc

Reply 3

Amazing

magiccarpet

im doing LLB Law

tom has no legal rights whatsoever. his asking to lower the price is irrelavent. there was no unequivocal acceptance on the part of Spike of the offer. so no contract existed between spike and tom, and therefore spike is free to sell the clubs to anyone. if he sold them to jerry, they are sold already so are no longer for sale.
the contract between mogg and tom cannot be fulfilled. unless mogg had paid a deposit on the clubs, mogg has given no considereation and the law will not support a bare promise so tom has no legal liablity to mogg

Are you entirely sure about that? You say "there was no unequivocal acceptance on the part of Spike of the offer" - but it says SPIKE is the one who MAKES the offer! The offer was supposed to stay up for 10 days, and it wasn't revoked until after it was accepted by Tom - due to the postal rule the acceptance would take affect as soon as it was posted, with the revocation not taking affect until communication. I don't think that just selling the clubs to someone else is a revocation unless if they actually tell this to the offeree (or if it is communicated by a reliable third party). Sure there's not a contract? :tongue:

Apologies if I'm reading the question completely wrongly.

Reply 4

gabi

OP

i am confused by this.... i dont now what to advise? SOMEONE HLEP!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply 5

NDGAARONDI

16

You'd be better of posting in the law section :smile:

Reply 6

magiccarpet

2

Amazing

Are you entirely sure about that? You say "there was no unequivocal acceptance on the part of Spike of the offer" - but it says SPIKE is the one who MAKES the offer! The offer was supposed to stay up for 10 days, and it wasn't revoked until after it was accepted by Tom - due to the postal rule the acceptance would take affect as soon as it was posted, with the revocation not taking affect until communication. I don't think that just selling the clubs to someone else is a revocation unless if they actually tell this to the offeree (or if it is communicated by a reliable third party). Sure there's not a contract? :tongue:

Apologies if I'm reading the question completely wrongly.

doesnt matter who makes the offer, the legal fact is, unless CONSIDERATION eg a deposit has been paid, no-one has any obligation to keep the offer open, even if they say they will, for any length of time.
As the clubs were sold before tom had posted the letter, his acceptance (which would take effect on posting) is invalid as the clubs are already sold so the offer is closed.

Reply 7

magiccarpet

2

gabi

thanks for your answer its really helpfull...

but could you maybe give me some more details.... e.g. similar cases and why contract betwen tom and mog cannot be fulfilled...

thank you very very very very muhc

i will look for some cases for u.
firstly, there is no contract between tom and mog. a contract requires offer, and acceptanvce, and consideration. toms consideration would be giving the clubs to mog, and mog's consideration would be giving the money. as neither has happened, no contract

Reply 8

gabi

OP

magiccarpet

i will look for some cases for u.
firstly, there is no contract between tom and mog. a contract requires offer, and acceptanvce, and consideration. toms consideration would be giving the clubs to mog, and mog's consideration would be giving the money. as neither has happened, no contract

thanks guys this is breaking my head

Reply 9

gabi

OP

Someone Please I Have To Give This On Monday

magiccarpet

doesnt matter who makes the offer, the legal fact is, unless CONSIDERATION eg a deposit has been paid, no-one has any obligation to keep the offer open, even if they say they will, for any length of time.
As the clubs were sold before tom had posted the letter, his acceptance (which would take effect on posting) is invalid as the clubs are already sold so the offer is closed.

Sure? Obviously somebody isn't obliged to keep an offer open indefinitely, but if they say they'll keep it open for a certain length of time and THEY DON'T REVOKE THE OFFER, then the offer is open. You seem to think just selling the clubs revokes the offer; everything I've ever read says this isn't the case unless if the fact they've been sold is actually communicated to the offeree by the offeror or a reliable third party, e.g. Dickinson v Dodds. So the offer is still open at the time Tom sends his letter of acceptance, because it hasn't been revoked yet! Revocation MUST be communicated, otherwise the offer remains open until the date they said they'd leave the offer open till. I know that nobody is obligated to keep an offer open until a set time, even if they say they will, but it is still a valid acceptance and a contract is formed IF THEY DO NOT REVOKE THAT OFFER before the offeree attempts to accept. Simply selling them to somebody else without telling the offeree is NOT revocation.

edit: whoah, looks like I said virtually everything twice there

Reply 12

gabi

OP

do u know any other places where i could seek help

Reply 13

gabi

OP

someone told me that ther may be a contract betwen spike and tom....is this possible

Reply 14

Rahul

Im an LLB student

There is a contract here. An offer can not be revoked without notice and will stand for the period that the offer has been made. By asking for a lower price, this is not rejecting the offer...it is a mere inquiry which there is case law to support. The person who sold should have not sold the clubs for the the time period that he said he would keep the offer open until unless he revoked the offer!!!

gabi

someone told me that ther may be a contract betwen spike and tom....is this possible